"The PS2 had a 2,560 bit wide bus between the two chips which gave them the ability to work in unison unlike any other platform."
Sorry, but you got this very wrong. I know this number of bits sound HUGE, but it doesn't means anything. Also, you are talking about the Embedded DRAM on the GPU here. The bandwidth on the main memory was 3.2 GBps and on the embedded DRAM was 6 GBps. It was somewhat faster than the GC's for example, but it had a huge latency that hindered it's performance. In overall, the PS2 had the less efficient memory management of the last gen.
"This means each can help the other."
This, was not an advantage, was a way to address a flaw. The GSX lacked the pixel shaders abilitys the GC and Xbox had, so the Vector Units on the Emotion Engine made that job. It also lacked Transform and Lighting technology and S3 Texture Compression. This means that anything on the PS2 could be done bigger and faster on the GC or Xbox.
"(On Xbox) No matter how fast your chips are if they can not comunicate with eachother, they are just being wasted."
Again, wrong. The Xbox had a very efficient memory. The Xbox used DDR SDRAM that gave it good speed with low latencys. 6.4 GBps, slightly higher than that of PS2. It didn't had an embedded RAM on the GPU like the other two, but it never needed it.
"(On 360) but yet again it has very bad comunication"
So, you mentioned the embedded DRAM bandwidth on the PS2 as a huge advantage, but you mention the one on 360 as a little advantage?. I guess 256 GBps of bandwidth on the embedded DRAM of 360 mean nothing to you.
"The CPU and GPU share 512MB of RAM with 22.4GB of throughput to split 2 ways."
It doesn't works like this. You have the 22.4 GBps to the GPU, then the GPU has a bandwidth to the CPU of 10.8 GBps write and 10.8 GBps read. So you don't really have a flaw here.
"The Wii is a Gamecube with more RAM and 3 times as powerful chip set as the Cube. Not many specs have been released on the system..."
How can you know that the Wii is 3x the GC if the specs have not been released?
Also, why you don't even mentioned the Cell has 512KB L2 cache and the Xenon has 1024KB?
"Motion controlls are very possible on all three systems"
So, Sony is going to phase the traditional gamepad+joystick and make motion controlling the standard? Yeah, right...
"and price is not going to be an advantage forever"
Like when most people bought the PS2 when it was way cheaper... completely ignoring the fact the GC was way more powerful (just like you said) and cheaper.
"The PS3 has the most room to grow in graphics, controlls and price deduction"
Graphics? You are telling me the RSX, without unified shader architecture has more headroom than the Xenos? Yeah... and why controls huh? In that case, 360 has exactly the same amount of room to grow on controls. And on prices, Wii and 360 don't have less room to price cuts. The 360 is cheaper to produce and with a 65 nonometers process on the way, I see another price cut. Nintendo is selling the Wii with profits right now, so by default that gives them room to price cut... and I'm ignoring the fact it must be cheaper to produce by now and that a 65 nm process is likely.
"PS3 will win this generation"
That's what you wanted to tell us right? Why took the time to make a super long post to say it? You can add it to your sig.
"heck even the last gen systems could do it"
Hahaha, good one. Seriously, pure gold.
"Wii will have its time in the sun but its days are numbered and its power is its weakness."
Yeah, just like the ill-fated NES, SNES, PSOne and PS2... stupid companies that don't give use the most powerful systems... good thing all of those failed.
Seriously, this thread is full of fail.
